JUDGMENT : C.M. POONACHA, J. 1. The above appeals are filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 , [Hereinafter referred to as, ‘CPC’] by the defendant No.26 calling in question the common order dated 19.11.2024 passed in O.S. No.687/2015 by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMVC., Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru , [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’] , whereunder I.As. No.8 and 9 filed by the plaintiff have been allowed and the defendant No.26 has been restrained from changing the nature or alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that the respondent No.1 – plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No.687/2015 seeking for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed by accepting the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff claims to be an agreement holder from the defendants No.1 to 25 vide agreement dated 18.10.2010, whereunder the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,10,000/-. The defendant No.26 is the purchaser of the suit property from defendants No.1 to 25 under registered sale deed dated 13.02.2023. 3. In the suit, defendants No.1 to 25 were arrayed as parties at the time of filing the suit and subsequently the defendant No.26 was impleaded pursuant to order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiff filed I.A. No.8 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC to restrain the proposed defendant No.26 from altering the nature of the suit property. The plaintiff also filed I.A. No.9 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the defendant No.26 from alienating the suit property. The defendantNo.26 objected to the said applications. The Trial Court, by order dated 19.11.2024 allowed I.As. No.8 and 9 and passed the following – “ORDER I.As. No.8 and 9 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w. Section 151 of CPC is allowed. Consequently, the defendant No.26 is restrained from changing the nature or alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit.” 5. Being aggrieved, the present appeals are filed by the defendant No.26. 6. Heard learned counsel, Sri.Anjaneya A.B. for the appellant/defendant No.26 and learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, appearing along with the learned counsel Sri.Vachan H.U. for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved, the present appeals are filed by the defendant No.26. 6. Heard learned counsel, Sri.Anjaneya A.B. for the appellant/defendant No.26 and learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Dhananjay Joshi, appearing along with the learned counsel Sri.Vachan H.U. for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. 7. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that although the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2015, upto the year 2023 even the suit summons were not served on defendants No.1 to 25. Reliance is placed on order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Trial Court to contend that only on the said date suit summons were issued to defendants No.1 to 25. It is further contended that the defendant No.26 has been impleaded pursuant to I.A. No.7 filed on 06.10.2023. Hence, it is contended that defendant No.26 was unaware of the pendency of the suit. Further various contentions are sought to be putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the right, title and interest of defendants No.1 to 25 over the suit property and as to the nature of the right that could be asserted by the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 18.10.2010. 8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 seeks to justify the order passed by the Trial Court and contends that the sale deed dated 13.02.2023 under which the defendant No.26 claims to have purchased the suit property itself is void, by virtue of Section 7A of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. It is further contended that the Trial Court having passed an equitable order, the same is not liable to be interfered by this Court in the present appeals. 9. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record have been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, “Whether the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Trial Court on I.As. No.8 and 9 is liable to be interfered with?” 10. The relevant facts are undisputed inasmuch as the plaintiff claims under the agreement of sale dated 18.10.2010 and has filed this suit seeking for specific performance of the same. The suit property is the subject matter of the property under the said agreement of sale dated 18.10.2010. The defendant No.26 is the purchaser of the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 13.02.2023. 11. The suit property is the subject matter of the property under the said agreement of sale dated 18.10.2010. The defendant No.26 is the purchaser of the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 13.02.2023. 11. The rights inter se between the plaintiff and defendant No.26 vis-à-vis the suit property is the matter of consideration and adjudication before the Trial Court and no finding can be recorded with regard to the same in the present appeals. 12. Insofar as the consideration of the order that has been passed under I.As. No.8 and 9, suffice to note that even under the agreement dated 18.10.2010 and the averments in the plaint, it is not the case of the plaintiff that they have been put in possession of the suit property. Having regard to the fact that the defendant No.26 has entered into a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2023, whereunder it is categorically stated that possession of the suit property has been handed over to defendant No.26 and in view of the assertion of the defendant No.26 that the revenue entries have been changed in his favour consequent to the registered sale deed dated 13.02.2023, for the purpose of consideration of I.As.No.8 and 9 it will have to be construed that defendant No.26 is in possession of the suit property. 13. The rights inter se between the plaintiff and defendant No.26 vis-à-vis the suit property is the subject matter of consideration before the Trial Court in the suit. Pending consideration of the same, if the defendant No.26 is permitted to deal with the property, the same would create third party rights and lead to multiplicity of pleadings. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that taking advantage of the order dated 19.11.2024 passed on I.As.No.8 and 9 by the Trial Court, the plaintiff is attempting to interfere with the possession of the suit property of defendant No.26. 15. It is relevant to note here that in the present appeals this Court vide order dated 24.12.2024 granted stay of the order dated 19.11.2024. Thereafter vide order dated 29.04.2025 this Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo of physical nature of the land as on the said date till the next date of hearing. 16. The Trial Court while considering the applications restrained the defendant No.26 from changing the nature or alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. Thereafter vide order dated 29.04.2025 this Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo of physical nature of the land as on the said date till the next date of hearing. 16. The Trial Court while considering the applications restrained the defendant No.26 from changing the nature or alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. The said order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the said order is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by the present Court in the present appeals. 17. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the question framed for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative. 18. Having regard to the prima facie finding recorded hereinabove, that the defendant No.26 is in possession of the suit property, the above appeals are disposed of by directing that the plaintiff is also restrained from interfering with the possession of the suit property by defendant No.26. 19. The observations made by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.11.2024 as well as by this Court in the present appeals are only for consideration of I.As. No.8 and 9. The Trial Court shall adjudicate upon the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in the said orders and rights and contentions of both parties are left open. 20. Needless to state that the parties shall co-operate with the Trial Court to adjudicate the suit as expeditiously as possible.